{"id":80546,"date":"2011-03-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/urdu-education-association-vs-deputy-director-of-education-on-16-march-2011"},"modified":"2016-07-06T12:57:50","modified_gmt":"2016-07-06T07:27:50","slug":"urdu-education-association-vs-deputy-director-of-education-on-16-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/urdu-education-association-vs-deputy-director-of-education-on-16-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"Urdu Education Association vs Deputy Director Of Education on 16 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Urdu Education Association vs Deputy Director Of Education on 16 March, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: A. H. Joshi, A. B. Chaudhari<\/div>\n
     wp254.93.odt                           1\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                      NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n                        WRIT PETITION NO.254\/1993,\n\n                        WRIT PETITION NO.1297\/1995,\n\n                        WRIT PETITION NO.1888\/1993,\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n                        WRIT PETITION NO.2231\/1995,\n\n                        WRIT PETITION NO.2291\/1995,\n\n                        WRIT PETITION NO.2292\/1995,\n\n\n\n\n                                 \n                        WRIT PETITION NO.2295\/1995,\n                                     AND\n                     ig  WRIT PETITION NO.3572\/1995\n\n     --------------------------------------------------------------\n\n                            WRIT PETITION NO.254\/1993\n                   \n     PETITIONER :-      Urdu Education Association, Amravati,\n                        a registered Public Trust, through its\n                        President Munaf Hussain Inayat Hussain,\n                        resident of Chandni Chowk, Amravati.\n      \n\n\n                                      ...VERSUS...\n   \n\n\n\n     RESPONDENTS     :-1.     Deputy Director of Education,\n                              Amravati Division, Amravati.\n\n                      2.     Education Officer, Zilla Parishad,\n\n\n\n\n\n                             Amravati.\n\n                      3.     Shri Vazir Patel, ex-receiver of the\n                             Association, Valgaon Raod, Amravati.\n\n                      4.     Ku. Ishrat Jabeen d\/o Abdul Majeed,\n\n\n\n\n\n                             resident of Chaprasipura, Amravati.\n\n                      5.     Smt. Jamila Bano d\/o Mohd. Shareef,\n                             resident of Miskinshah Plot, Amravati.\n\n                      6.     Abdul Waheed Sheikh Jammu, resident of\n                             Kholapur, District Amravati.\n\n                      7.     Firoz Khan Sikandar Khan, resident of\n                             Muzaffarpura, Amravati.\n\n\n\n\n                                            ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::\n      wp254.93.odt                           2\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n     --------------------------------------------------------\n     Mr. K.H. Deshpande, Sr. Adv. with Mr. M.D. Lakhe, Adv. for petitioner\n     Mr. T.A. Mirza, AGP for respdt. No.1.\n     Ms Mugdha Chandurkar, Adv. h\/f Mr. A. Parchure, Adv. for respdt. No.4\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n     Mr. P.C. Madkholkar, Adv. for respdt. Nos.5 and 6\n     --------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n                         WRIT PETITION NO.1297\/1995\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n     PETITIONER :-      Urdu Education Association, Amravati,\n                        through its President, Chandni Chowk,\n                        Amravati, Taluq and District Amravati.\n\n\n\n\n                               \n                                     ...VERSUS...\n\n     RESPONDENTS    \n                     :-1.   Presiding Officer,\n                            School Tribunal, Amravati Division,\n                            Amravati.\n                   \n                       2.    Mohammad Idrees s\/o Abdul Bashir,\n                            aged 24 years, resident of Juni Basti,\n                             Badnera, Taluq and District Amravati.\n\n                       3.   Mohammad Asif s\/o Sheikh Baba,\n                            aged 21 years, resident of\n      \n\n                            c\/o Sheikh Baba Sheikh Kasam,\n                            Chhota Bazar, Paratwada, Taluq\n   \n\n\n\n                            Achalpur, District Amravati.\n\n                       4.    Firoz Khan s\/o Sikandar Khan,\n                             aged about 21 years, resident of\n                             Muzaffarpura, Near Kabrastan,\n\n\n\n\n\n                            Amravati, Taluq and District Amravati.\n\n                       5.    Abdul Waheed s\/o Sheikh Hammu,\n                             aged 29 years, resident of\n                            c\/o Dr. Saifuddin, Talabpura,\n                            Amravati, Tah. and Dist. Amravati.\n\n\n\n\n\n                       6. Abbas Khan s\/o Shahbaz Khan,\n                          aged 35 years, resident of at Post\n                          Kurha Deshmukh, Tq. Chandur Bazar,\n                          District Amravati.\n\n                       7. Maqsood Ahmed s\/o Sheikh Murtuza,\n                          aged 25 years, resident of 9\/61,\n                         Gaos Nagar, Muzaffarpura, Amravati,\n                         Tahsil and District Amravati.\n\n\n\n\n                                            ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::\n      wp254.93.odt                           3\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n                     8. Mukhtar Hussain s\/o Mohammad Hussain,\n                        aged 25 years, resident of Shirajgaon\n                        Band, Tq. Chandur Bazar, District\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n                        Amravati.\n\n                     9. Jameela Bano d\/o Mohammad Sharif,\n                        aged 31 years, resident of Maskeen\n                        Shah Plots, Chandni Chowk, Amravati,\n                        Tahsil and Dist. Amravati.\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n                     10. Ku. Ishrat Jabin d\/o Abdul Majid\n                         aged 21 years, resident of Near\n                         Flour Mill, Jail road, Camp\n                         Amravati, Tah. and Distt. Amravati.\n\n\n\n\n                               \n                     11. Deputy Director of Education,\n                     ig Amravati Region, Amravati.\n\n                     12. Deputy Director of Vocational\n                         Education and Training, Amravati.\n                   \n                     13. Education Officer (Secondary),\n                         Zilla Parishad, Amravati.\n\n                     14. Athar Hussain s\/o Iqbal Hussain\n                         aged about 25 years, Occ. Service.\n      \n\n\n                     15. Tamijodin s\/o Sirajodin,\n   \n\n\n\n                         aged about 27 years, Occ. Service.\n\n                     16. Abdul Rafiq Abdul Rauf,\n                         aged about 25 years, Occ. Service.\n\n\n\n\n\n                     17. Javed Anjuman Sk. Rasul,\n                         aged about 23 years, Occ. Service.\n\n                         All residents of Amravati,\n                         Tq. and Distt. Amravati.\n\n\n\n\n\n     --------------------------------------------------------\n     Mr.K.H. Deshpande, Sr. Adv. with Mr.S.V. Purohit, Adv. for petitioner\n     Mr. T.A. Mirza, AGP for respdt. Nos. 11 to 13\n     Ms Mugdha Chandurkar, Adv.h\/f Mr. A. Parchure, Adv. for respdt. No.10\n     Mr.R.A. Haq. Adv. for respdt. Nos.14 to 17.\n     Mr. P.C. Madkholkar, Adv. for respdt. Nos. 2,3,5 to 9\n     --------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                                            ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::\n      wp254.93.odt                           4\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n                        WRIT PETITION NO.1888\/1993\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n     PETITIONER :-      Noor Subah d\/o Mohd. Nayeem Qureshi,\n                        aged about 26 years, Occupation :\n                        Service r\/o Camp near Circuit House,\n                        Amravati.\n\n                                     ...VERSUS...\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n     RESPONDENTS     :-1.   Education Officer, Zilla Parishad\n                            Amravati.\n\n                       2.   President, Urdu Education Association\n\n\n\n\n                               \n                            Amravati office at Chandani Chauk,\n                            Amravati.\n                     ig3.   Ishrat Jabeen d\/o Abdul Majid\n                            (Chakkiwala), Chaprasi Pura\n                            Camp Amravati, Tahsil and\n                            District Amravati.\n                   \n     --------------------------------------------------------\n     Mr. V.M. Deshpande, Adv. for petitioner\n     Mr. T.A. Mirza, AGP for respdt. No.1\n     Ms Mugdha Chandurkar, Adv.h\/f Mr. A. Parchure, Adv. for respdt. No.3\n     --------------------------------------------------------\n      \n\n\n                        WRIT PETITION NO.2231\/1995\n   \n\n\n\n     PETITIONER :-      Deputy Director of Vocational\n                        Education & Training, Amravati.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                     ...VERSUS...\n\n     RESPONDENTS     :-1.   Mohammad Idrees s\/o Abdul Bashir,\n                            aged about 26 years, occupation\n                            presently working as lecturer\n                            under the Association Urdu Boys\n\n\n\n\n\n                            High School and Junior College,\n                            Amravati, resident of Juni Basti,\n                            Badnera, Tq and Dist. Amravati.\n\n                       2.    Urdu Education Association,\n                            Amravati, through its President,\n                            Chandni Chowk, Amravati, taluq\n                            and Dist. Amravati and another.\n\n\n\n\n                                            ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::\n      wp254.93.odt                           5\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n                        3. Mohammad Alfafur Rehman,\n                           Lecturer, Urdu Education Association,\n                           Amravati.\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n                        4. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal,\n                           Amravati Division, Amravati,\n                           Shri M.G. Nandeshwar.\n\n     --------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n     Mr. M.J. Khan, AGP for petitioner\n     Mr. P.C. Madkholkar, Adv. for respdt. No.1\n     Mr. S.V. Purohit, Adv. for respdt. No.2\n     --------------------------------------------------------\n\n                        WRIT PETITION NO.2291\/1995\n\n\n\n\n                               \n     PETITIONER :-   ig Deputy Director of Vocational\n                        Education & Training, Amravati.\n\n                                     ...VERSUS...\n                   \n     RESPONDENTS     :-1. Abbas Khan s\/o Shahbaz Khan,\n                          aged about 37 years, occupation\n                          presently working as Electrical\n                          Instructor under the Association\n                          Urdu Boys High School and Junior\n      \n\n                          College, Amravati, resident of\n                          at post Kurha Deshmukh, taluq\n   \n\n\n\n                          Chandur Bazar, District Amravati.\n\n                       2. Urdu Education Association,\n                          Amravati through its president\n                          Chandni chowk, Amravati, taluq\n\n\n\n\n\n                          and District Amravati and another.\n\n                       3. Athar Husain, Instructor, Urdu\n                          Education Association, Amravati.\n\n                       4. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal,\n\n\n\n\n\n                          Amravati Division, Amravati\n                         Shri M.G. Nandeshwar.\n\n     --------------------------------------------------------\n     Mr. T.A. Mirza, AGP for petitioner\n     Mr. P.C. Madkholkar, Adv. for respdt. No.1\n     Mr. S.V. Purohit, Adv. for respdt. No.2\n     --------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                                            ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::\n      wp254.93.odt                           6\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n                        WRIT PETITION NO.2292\/1995\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n     PETITIONER :-      Deputy Director of Vocational\n                        Education & Training, Amravati.\n\n                                     ...VERSUS...\n\n     RESPONDENTS     :-1. Maqsood Ahmad s\/o Sheikh Murtuza\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n                          aged about 27 years, occupation\n                          presently working as Electronic\n                          Inspector, under the Association\n                          Urdu Boys High School and Junior\n                          College, Amravati, resident of\n\n\n\n\n                               \n                          9\/61, Caos Nagar, Muzaffarpura,\n                          Amravati, taluq and district Amravati.\n                     ig2. Urdu Education Association,\n                          Amravati, through its president,\n                          Chandni Chowk, Amravati, taluq\n                          and district Amravati and another.\n                   \n                       3. Mohd. Shakeel, Instructor, Urdu\n                          Education Association, Amravati.\n\n                       4. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal,\n      \n\n                          Amravati Division, Amravati\n                         Shri M.G. Nandeshwar.\n   \n\n\n\n     --------------------------------------------------------\n     Mr. T.A. Mirza, AGP for petitioner\n     Mr. P.C. Madkholkar, Adv. for respdt. No.1\n     Mr. S.V. Purohit, Adv.f or respdt. No.2\n     --------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n\n                        WRIT PETITION NO.2295\/1995\n\n\n     PETITIONER :-      Deputy Director of Vocational\n                        Education & Training, Amravati.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                     ...VERSUS...\n\n     RESPONDENTS     :-1. Mohammad Asif s\/o Sheikh Baba\n                          aged about 21 years, occupation\n                          presently working as Instructor\n                          under the Association Urdu Boys\n                          High School and Junior College,\n                          Amravati, resident of C\/o Sheikh\n                          Baba s\/o Sheikh Kasam, Chhota\n\n\n\n\n                                            ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::\n      wp254.93.odt                           7\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n                           Bazar, Paratwada, taluq Achalpur,\n                           Dist. Amravati.\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n                       2. Urdu Education Association,\n                          Amravati, through its President,\n                          Chandni Chowk, Amravati, taluq\n                          and district Amravati and another.\n\n                       3. Abdul Raffiq, Instructor, Urdu\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n                          Education Association, Amravati.\n\n                       4. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal,\n                          Amravati Division, Amravati\n                         Shri M.G. Nandeshwar.\n\n\n\n\n                               \n     --------------------------------------------------------\n     Mr. T.A. Mirza, AGP for petitioner\n                    \n     Mr. P.C. Madkholkar, Adv. for respdt. No.1\n     Mr. S.V. Purohit, Adv. for respdt. No.2\n     --------------------------------------------------------\n                   \n                        WRIT PETITION NO.3572\/1995\n\n\n\n     PETITIONERS :-     1.   Athar Hussain s\/o Iqbal Hussain,\n      \n\n                             aged about 25 years, occupation :\n                             service.\n   \n\n\n\n                        2.   Tamijodin s\/o Sirajodin,\n                             aged about 27 years, occupation :\n                             service.\n\n\n\n\n\n                        3.   Abdul Rafiq Abdul Rauf,\n                             aged about 25 years, Occupation :\n                             service.\n\n                        4.   Javed Anjum Sk. Rasul,\n                             aged about 23 years, Occupation :\n\n\n\n\n\n                             service.\n\n                             All residents of Amravati,\n                             Taluq and District : Amravati.\n\n                                     ...VERSUS...\n\n     RESPONDENTS    :- 1. Urdu Education Association,\n                          Amravati, through its President.\n\n\n\n\n                                            ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::\n      wp254.93.odt                           8\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n                        2. Association Urdu Junior College,\n                           (Minimum Competence Vocational\n                           Course), Amravati, through its\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n                           Principal.\n\n                         3. Deputy Director of Vocational\n                            Education and Training, Regional\n                            Office, Amravati.\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n                         4. State of Maharashtra, through\n                            its Secretary, Ministry of Education,\n                            (Technical Education), Mantralaya,\n                            Bombay   32.\n\n\n\n\n                               \n                         5. Shri Abbas Khan s\/o Shahbas Khan,\n                            R\/o Kurha, Tah. Chandur,\n                     ig     Dist. Amravati.\n\n                         6. Moh. Asif s\/o Moh. Baba\n                            R\/o Chota Bazar, Tah. Achalpur,\n                   \n                            Dist. Amravati.\n\n                         7. Muktar Hussain s\/o Mohd. Hussain\n                            R\/o Sirazgaon Band, Amravati.\n\n                         8. Moh. Idriees s\/o Abdul Baseer\n      \n\n                            R\/o Zuni Basti, Badnera, Dist.\n                            Amravati.\n   \n\n\n\n     --------------------------------------------------------\n     Mr. R.A. Haq. Adv. for petitioners\n     Mr. M.J. Khan, AGP for respdt. Nos.3 and 4\n     Mr. S.V. Purohit, Adv. for respdt. Nos. 1 and 2\n     --------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n\n                                    CORAM   :   A.H. JOSHI AND\n                                                A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ.\n\n     Date of reserving the judgment :   15.02.2011\n\n\n\n\n\n     Date of pronouncing the judgment : 16.03.2011\n\n\n     J U D G M E N T      (PER : A.H. JOSHI, J.)\n<\/pre>\n
     1.             These writ petitions are taken up together for<\/p>\n
     hearing and final disposal.\n<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                                    9<\/span><\/p>\n
     2.             This Court by order dated 6.8.1997 in Writ<\/p>\n
     Petition No.1297\/1995 directed that Writ Petition No.<\/p>\n
     254\/1993 be heard as lead matter amongst several writ<\/p>\n
     petitions and hence, we have heard Writ Petition No.<\/p>\n
     254\/1993    first      and       thereafter      we    have     heard      all     the<\/p>\n
     connected writ petitions one by one.\n<\/p>\n
     3.             In view that the group of petitions is being<\/p>\n
     heard together, it would be necessary to have a glance<\/p>\n
     at   the   tenor      of    different         groups    out     of    this     group<\/p>\n
     petitions. Those are as follows :\n<\/p>\n
                    (1)    WRIT PETITION NO. 254\/1993\n      \n   \n\n\n\n                    This    petition          is   filed      by    Urdu      Education\n\n<\/pre>\n
     Association, who runs the Educational Institution. In<\/p>\n
     this   petition,           the    said    institution          is     represented<\/p>\n
     through its President Mr. Munaf Hussain Inayat Hussain.\n<\/p>\n
     The object of the petition is to<\/p>\n
                    (i)    seek         a     declaration           that        judgment<\/p>\n
     rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No.1943\/1992 is<\/p>\n
     not binding on the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                                   10<\/span><\/p>\n
                    (ii) declare        that        respondent          No.3,     former<\/p>\n
     receiver       of   the    Trust    has    no       authority         to   appoint<\/p>\n
     respondent Nos. 4 to 7 therein.\n<\/p>\n
                    (iii)      the    order     passed        by     the     Education<\/p>\n
     Officer on 3.12.1992, granting approval for appointments<\/p>\n
     of respondent Nos.4 to 7 therein be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
                    (iv) declaration that respondent Nos.4 to 7<\/span><\/p>\n
     therein are not entitled to any relief such as salary.\n<\/p>\n
                    (2) WRIT PETITION NO.1297\/1995<\/p>\n
                    This    petition      is    filed        by    Urdu      Education<\/p>\n
     Society     through       President       Mr.       Munaf     Hussain        Inayat<\/p>\n
     Hussain challenging the judgment and order passed by the<\/p>\n
     School    Tribunal,        Amravati       in    Appeal        Nos.189\/92-A         to<\/p>\n
     197\/92-A       decided    by     common    judgment          and    order     dated<\/p>\n
     9.3.1995,       granting        reinstatement        and      back      wages      to<\/p>\n
     respondent Nos.2 to 10 therein. Respondent Nos.3 to 7 in<\/p>\n
     Writ     Petition        No.254\/1993       are       amongst        these       nine<\/p>\n
     respondents.\n<\/p>\n
                    The challenge in writ petition No.1297\/1995 is<\/p>\n
     based on the ground inter alia that during pendency of<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                                 11<\/span><\/p>\n
     first appeal in the High Court between Mr. Munaf Hussain<\/p>\n
     Inayat     Hussain       and      others          against      the        Charity<\/p>\n
     Commissioner, the receiver was not and could not have<\/p>\n
     functioned as administrator of the Trust etc.<\/p>\n
                    (3)     WRIT PETITION NO.3572\/1995<\/p>\n
                    This    petition    is    filed       by     four    appointees<\/p>\n
     against the Educational Institution claimed to be run by<\/p>\n
     the President Mr. Munaf Hussain Inayat Hussain. These<\/p>\n
     employees had prayed for mandamus for approval to their<\/p>\n
     appointments.\n<\/p>\n
                    These    four    employees,          whose     services        were<\/p>\n
     terminated     during     pendency      of    the    petition        by    orders<\/p>\n
     dated    9.12.1996,      have   prayed       for    setting        aside    those<\/p>\n
     orders and consequently, benefit of payment of salary<\/p>\n
     etc..\n<\/p>\n
                    (4)     WRIT PETITION NO.1888\/1993<\/p>\n
                    This petition is filed by Noor Subah d\/o Mohd.\n<\/p>\n
     Nayeem Qureshi, claiming relief of mandamus against the<\/p>\n
     Education Officer, seeking approval to the appointments<\/p>\n
     which were made by President Mr. Munaf Hussain Inayat<\/p>\n
     Hussain.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                                     12<\/span><\/p>\n
     4.             In support of the lead writ petition, learned<\/p>\n
     Senior Advocate Shri K.H. Deshpande made the following<\/p>\n
     submissions :\n<\/p>\n
                    (a)   The      first       board        of    trustees        who     were<\/p>\n
     appointed in the scheme proceedings made on 25.2.1975 by<\/p>\n
     the   Deputy    Charity       Commissioner,               Mumbai       in    Suo     Motu<\/p>\n
     Proceeding      No.127\/1973,             in    which         Mr.     Munaf      Hussain<\/p>\n
     Inayat     Hussain
\n                     ig      was        the       president,          took       charge      on<\/p>\n
     22.4.1991,      after    civil           court       dismissed         the     suit     by<\/p>\n
     judgment and decree dated 20.4.1991, holding that the<\/p>\n
     suit is not maintainable. During pendency of said suit<\/p>\n
     the appointment of these trustees was kept in abeyance,<\/p>\n
     pending decision of suit.                 Receiver Mr. Wazir Patel, who<\/p>\n
     was appointed by order in suit, stood removed because of<\/p>\n
     dismissal of the suit and the first board of trustee<\/p>\n
     took charge of the Trust and its properties.\n<\/p>\n
                    (b)   That          the        first       board        of      trustees\n\n     including      the   President           -     Munaf        Hussain       s\/o     Inayat\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     Hussain took charge on 22.4.1991 is fully corroborated<\/p>\n
     and supported by the following events:\n<\/p>\n
              (i)   The suit itself was dismissed on 20.4.1991<\/p>\n
                    putting        an     end       to      the     order        appointing<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                              13<\/span><\/p>\n
                    receiver     in   place    of     the     first       board    of<\/p>\n
                    trustees.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (ii) Application made by the District Government<\/p>\n
                    Pleader, Amravati on 23.4.1991 for stay of<\/p>\n
                    the order of the Court i.e. dated 20.4.1991<\/p>\n
                    was    rejected    vide     order        dated    23.4.1991.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    Note of this event was taken in the special<\/p>\n
                    meeting of the trust held on 22.4.1991.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (iii)In       Writ   Petition     No.1184\/1991,          stay     order<\/p>\n
                    that   was   granted      earlier       on    8.5.1991,       was<\/p>\n
                    modified     to   the     order     of       status    quo     on<\/p>\n
                    26.4.1991 because the learned Vacation Judge<\/p>\n
                    was    informed   that     the    charge         was   already<\/p>\n
                    taken on 22.4.1991. The said writ petition<\/p>\n
                    was eventually withdrawn on 20.6.1991.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (iv) On 5.7.1991 on Civil Application No.1030 in<\/p>\n
                    First Appeal No.221\/1991, this Court modified<\/p>\n
                    the stay order that was earlier granted on<\/p>\n
                    8.5.1991 and clarified the same as                       status<\/p>\n
                    quo    and nothing more.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                                 14<\/span><\/p>\n
            (v)     Civil     Application         No.1268\/1992              in     First<\/p>\n
                    Appeal     No.221\/1991             was     filed        when     the<\/p>\n
                    appointments were sought to be made and this<\/p>\n
                    Court    on    9.6.1992       having       been        made    fully<\/p>\n
                    aware about the charge having been already<\/p>\n
                    taken on 22.4.1991, made the following order:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                  appointments           made,        if     any,\n                       shall be subject to the result of the\n                     igappeal.\n                   \n            (vi)    The     Deputy       Director        of    Education           after\n\n<\/pre>\n
                    granting hearing to both sides on 9.6.1992<\/p>\n
                    made the following order :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                             As there is status quo given by the<\/p>\n
                    Hon’ble       High    Court        hence     in    the       present<\/p>\n
                    situation :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            1)      Both the parties will not transfer, appoint<\/p>\n
                    any staff member.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            2)      Will not take any decision which will affect<\/p>\n
                    the administration of the institution and in<\/p>\n
                    case of any dispute they are advised to see<\/p>\n
                    the Dy. Director of Education, Amravati.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                                   15<\/span><\/p>\n
                    (c)      In     the     wake     of     the        above      factual\n\n     scenario       about       receiver    having       been     removed       and     his\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n<\/pre>\n
     charge having been taken at least after 9.6.1992, the<\/p>\n
     receiver Mr. Wazir Patel could not have made a single<\/p>\n
     appointment, but he made the appointments in question on<\/p>\n
     25.6.1992       and    even     thereafter,          which     were       obviously<\/p>\n
     illegal and without any authority.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n                    (d)\n                     ig      This         Court      decided           First       Appeal\n\n<\/pre>\n
     No.221\/1991 on 7.10.1992 and categorically found that<\/p>\n
     there    was     a    deliberate       attempt       on     the     part     of    the<\/p>\n
     Charity      Commissioner,           receiver       Mr.      Wazir     Patel       and<\/p>\n
     others to keep away the first board of trustees that was<\/p>\n
     appointed in the scheme proceedings.                         It is clear that<\/p>\n
     this    Court        found    all     actions       taken     by     the     Charity<\/p>\n
     Commissioner and receiver were illegal, and if actions<\/p>\n
     of     keeping       the     board    of     trustees        away    were      found<\/p>\n
     illegal, all the appointments made by the receiver must<\/p>\n
     be held to be illegal and even now restitution must be<\/p>\n
     made    by   this      Court    referable       to     the    date      of    taking<\/p>\n
     charge, namely 22.4.1991.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (e)      The judgment and order dated 15.10.1992<\/p>\n
     in Writ Petition No.1943\/1992, passed by the Division<\/p>\n
     Bench of this Court, directing that the approvals to the<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                                    16<\/span><\/p>\n
     appointments         of    the     appointees        made    by    the    receiver<\/p>\n
     should be granted and their salary should be paid does<\/p>\n
     not bind the petitioner as the petitioner                                President<\/p>\n
     representing the first board of trustees was never made<\/p>\n
     party to the said writ petition and since the judgment<\/p>\n
     does not bind the petitioner herein a declaration to<\/p>\n
     that effect is required to be given and consequently,<\/p>\n
     the directions to the Education Officer contained in the<\/p>\n
     said judgment are required to be wiped out.\n<\/p>\n
                    (f)        Perusal    of     the      said       judgment       dated<\/p>\n
     15.10.1992 in Writ Petition No.1943\/1992 shows that this<\/p>\n
     Court was misled and misrepresented by the petitioners<\/p>\n
     (appointees) therein that the First Appeal No.221\/1991<\/p>\n
     since    having      been     dismissed,        there       was    no    hurdle     in<\/p>\n
     granting approval and this Court readily believed it.\n<\/p>\n
                    (g)        The judgment in First Appeal No.221\/1991<\/p>\n
     was delivered on 7.10.1992 and the copy of the said<\/p>\n
     judgment could have been insisted upon by this Court for<\/p>\n
     looking   into       the    same     as   to    what      was     decided.         Not<\/p>\n
     having    done       so,     the    judgment         of     this    Court      dated<\/p>\n
     15.10.1992 in Writ Petition No.1943\/1992 runs counter to<\/p>\n
     what has been held in the judgment dated 7.10.1992 in<\/p>\n
     First    Appeal      No.221\/1991          and   therefore,         the     judgment<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                                   17<\/span><\/p>\n
     dated      15.10.1992            was     obtained          by        fraud        and<\/p>\n
     misrepresentation.\n<\/p>\n
                    (h)     A     judgment         obtained          by    fraud         or<\/p>\n
     misrepresentation is ‘no judgment’ in the eye of law and<\/p>\n
     can   be   put   to    challenge        in    any   proceedings          or    by    a<\/p>\n
     substantive writ petition.                    Hence, the petitioner has<\/p>\n
     filed a substantive writ petition as remedy of review is<\/p>\n
     not available to the petitioner since the petitioner was<\/p>\n
     not a party to the Writ Petition No.1943\/1992. Learned<\/p>\n
     Senior     Advocate         Mr.     K.H.      Deshpande         supported         the<\/p>\n
     submission by relying on the judgment in the case of<\/p>\n
     Ramchandra Ganpat Shinde and another…Versus…State of<\/p>\n
     Maharashtra      and       others      reported     in    AIR     1994     Supreme<\/p>\n
     Court 1673.\n<\/p>\n
                    (i)     Neither the petitioner in Writ Petition<\/p>\n
     No.1943\/1992     nor       the    respondent        in   the     said     petition<\/p>\n
     including receiver Mr. Wazir Patel correctly informed<\/p>\n
     the Court as to what was held in the judgment that was<\/p>\n
     passed on 7.10.1992 in First Appeal No.221\/1991 and on<\/p>\n
     the contrary, deliberately withheld the copy of the said<\/p>\n
     judgment    from      the    Court      and    in   collusion        misled       the<\/p>\n
     Court which wrongly allowed the said writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                                   18<\/span><\/p>\n
                     (j)    The     orders         passed          at      interlocutory<\/p>\n
     stages by this Court in various proceedings are bound to<\/p>\n
     merge    in    the    final    orders        or      judgments        and     in      that<\/p>\n
     context, therefore, such interlocutory or interim orders<\/p>\n
     will    have    to    be    treated     as     of      no    assistance          to   the<\/p>\n
     appointees or receiver Mr. Wazir Patel.\n<\/p>\n
                     (k)    In    the    light      of      maxim,       namely,        actus<\/p>\n
     curiae neminem gravabit, the petitioner should not be<\/p>\n
     put     to     prejudice       and       therefore,             the      relief         of<\/p>\n
     restitution, namely to declare that the petitioner who<\/p>\n
     was President of the first board of trustee was and is<\/p>\n
     entitled         to         manage           the         affairs            of         the<\/p>\n
     schools\/institutions and the appointments made by the<\/p>\n
     petitioner alone were legal and proper is required to be<\/p>\n
     given and further declare that appointments made by the<\/p>\n
     receiver Mr. Wazir Patel were all illegal.                                   The same<\/p>\n
     ought to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
                     (l)    There       is   an    undertaking           given        by   the<\/p>\n
     appointees, appointed by the receiver that they would<\/p>\n
     refund their salaries, if any, paid to them vide order<\/p>\n
     in    Writ     Petition      No.1943\/1992.            In    that      view       of   the<\/p>\n
     matter, this Court ought to undo the wrong.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                        19<\/span><\/p>\n
                    Learned Senior Advocate Mr. K.H. Deshpande has<\/p>\n
     cited the following decisions :\n<\/p>\n
                    (i)   AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1673 (Ramchandra
\n                    Ganpat Shinde and another…Versus…State of<\/p>\n
                    Maharashtra and others).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (ii) 1997 (7) Supreme Court Cases 300<\/p>\n
                    (Reliance Industries Ltd…Versus…Pravinbhai
\n                    Jasbhai Patel and others).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (iii) 1981 Mh. L.J. 18 (J.G. Sinkar and<\/p>\n
                    others…Versus…State    of    Maharashtra          and
\n                    others).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (iv) 2000 (1) Supreme Court Cases 666 (M.M.
\n                    Thomas…Versus…State of Kerala and<\/p>\n
                    another).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (v)   2006 (7) Supreme Court Cases 416 (Hamza<\/p>\n
                    Haji…Versus…State of Kerala and another).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (vi) 2000 (3) Supreme Court Cases 581 (United
\n                    India Insurance Co. Ltd….Versus…Rajendra<\/p>\n
                    Singh and others).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (vii) 1997 (1) SCALE 278
\n                    (N.Mohanan…Versus…State of Kerala & ors.).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (viii) 1992 (3) Supreme Court Cases 1 (Shri
\n                    Chamundi Mopeds Ltd….Versus…Church of<\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                           20<\/span><\/p>\n
                    South India Trust Association CSI Cinod
\n                    Secretariat, Madras).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (ix)     2004 (7) Supreme Court Cases 219 (BPL
\n                    Ltd. and others…Versus…R. Sudhakar and
\n                    others).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (x)     1997 (1) Supreme Court Cases 156 (State
\n                    of M.P. and others…Versus…M.V. Vyavsaya &<\/p>\n
                    Co.).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (xi)     2007 (4) Supreme Court Cases 221 (A.V.
\n                    Papayya Sastry and others…Versus…Govt. of
\n                    A.P. and others).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (xii) AIR 1962 Supreme Court 21 (Hiralal
\n                    Patni…Versus…Loonkaran Sethiya and<\/p>\n
                    others).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (xiii)     1994 (6) Supreme Court Cases 545
\n                    (Shyam Sunder Datta…Versus…Baikuntha Nath
\n                    Banerjee (Dead) By Lrs. and others).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (xiv)    2000 (2) SCALE 343 (United India
\n                    Insurance Co. Ltd….Versus…Rajendra Singh
\n                    and others).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (xv)    2003 (8) Supreme Court Cases 648 (South
\n                    Eastern Coal Field Ltd….Versus…State of
\n                    M.P.).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (xvi)    2004 (2) Supreme Court Cases 783
\n                    (Karnataka Rare Earth and<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                              21<\/span><\/p>\n
                    another…Versus…Senior Geologist,
\n                    Department of Mines & Geology and another).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     5.             Learned    Advocate    Mr.      S.V.    Purohit        for     the<\/p>\n
     petitioners in Writ Petition No.1297\/1995 adopted the<\/p>\n
     submissions      of      learned     Senior       Advocate         Mr.      K.H.\n<\/p>\n
     Deshpande and urged that by allowing the Writ Petition<\/p>\n
     the common judgment and order of School Tribunal be set<\/p>\n
     aside, as it has to follow as imperative consequence of<\/p>\n
     allowing Writ Petition No.254\/1993.\n<\/p>\n
                    Learned    Advocates       appearing         for     the     writ<\/p>\n
     petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.1888\/1993 and 3572\/1995<\/p>\n
     by    adopting   the     submissions      advanced       by    the     learned<\/p>\n
     Senior Advocate Shri K.H. Deshpande submitted that the<\/p>\n
     petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.1888\/1993 and 3572\/1995<\/p>\n
     being the employees, appointed by the President of the<\/p>\n
     Trust (who is petitioner in Writ Petition Nos.254\/1993<\/p>\n
     and    1297\/1995)        claim     that    they       are     entitled         to<\/p>\n
     protection particularly since this Court had stayed the<\/p>\n
     orders of the School Tribunal of reinstatements of the<\/p>\n
     appointees who were appointed by the receiver.\n<\/p>\n
     6.             Writ      Petition     Nos.2231\/1995,              2291\/1995,<\/p>\n
     2292\/1995 and 2295\/1995 which are filed by the Deputy<\/p>\n
     Director of Vocational Education and Training, Amravati<\/p>\n
     in which the petitioner has urged sole point that the<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                               22<\/span><\/p>\n
     directions contained in operative para 4 and 5 of the<\/p>\n
     judgment of the School Tribunal, consisting of direction<\/p>\n
     to the Government to pay the salaries of the appellants<\/p>\n
     in   the    event     management      fails       to   pay,     is     without<\/p>\n
     hearing, as the Deputy Director was not impleaded as a<\/p>\n
     party.\n<\/p>\n
     7.             Per     contra,      learned       Advocate         Mr.      P.C.\n<\/p>\n
     Madkholkar      vehemently\n                     ig               opposed    all    writ     petitions         and\n\n     argued that :-\n                   \n                    (a)    There is no iota of evidence on record\n\n     to   even   remotely       infer   that    the    petitioners         in    Writ\n      \n\n     Petition       No.1943\/1992        were    in     collusion        with       the\n   \n\n\n\n     respondents.\n\n                    On    the   other   hand    that    the      statement       that\n\n<\/pre>\n
     there is no hurdle in deciding the writ petition due to<\/p>\n
     the decision in First Appeal was made by the Headmaster<\/p>\n
     of   the    School     the   respondent     No.8       in   Writ      Petition<\/p>\n
     No.1943\/1992, and it is so recorded in the judgment.\n<\/p>\n
     Moreover, said Headmaster is not in the array of the<\/p>\n
     respondents.\n<\/p>\n
                    (b)    The pleadings and evidence required for<\/p>\n
     proving collusion or fraud or misrepresentation must be<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                                  23<\/span><\/p>\n
     cogent as such a charge is of very serious nature and in<\/p>\n
     the   absence     of    adequate      pleadings       and       adequate      proof<\/p>\n
     about     collusion,         fraud     or     misrepresentation,               writ<\/p>\n
     petitions cannot be entertained.\n<\/p>\n
                    (c)     The judgment recorded by this Court on<\/p>\n
     15.10.1992 is a judgment obtained between the parties,<\/p>\n
     namely employer Urdu Education Society and employees.\n<\/p>\n
     The employer was a party to the petition through its<\/p>\n
     receiver,      who     was   appointed        by    the      competent        Civil<\/p>\n
     Court.\n<\/p>\n
                    (d)     On    the     date    of     filing       of     the    writ<\/p>\n
     petition and even after the decision dated 7.10.1992 in<\/p>\n
     First     Appeal       No.221\/1991          and    till      6.11.1992,          the<\/p>\n
     receiver actually continued to hold the charge.                                  The<\/p>\n
     Society    was     arrayed     and     was    served       in    the     petition<\/p>\n
     through the receiver who was all throughout actually in-\n<\/p>\n
     charge of management of the Trust. The first board of<\/p>\n
     trustees       through       its     President        i.e.        the       present<\/p>\n
     petitioner in Writ Petition Nos.1297\/1995, 254\/1993 and<\/p>\n
     had never entered the charge and control of the Trust.\n<\/p>\n
                    (e)     Therefore       question         of      arraying         the<\/p>\n
     petitioner       as    party   did     not        arise.        At    any     rate,<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                          24<\/span><\/p>\n
     Headmistress of the two schools were party to the said<\/p>\n
     writ petition and it is not possible to believe that the<\/p>\n
     present   petitioner     did   not   know   about      the     said     writ<\/p>\n
     petition, when there were as many as eight respondents<\/p>\n
     and each and every matter was being contested in various<\/p>\n
     Courts and the Education Department of the Government.\n<\/p>\n
                    (f)   The judgment and order dated 15.10.1992<\/p>\n
     in Writ Petition No.1943\/1992 therefore, cannot be said<\/p>\n
     to be obtained by fraud or misrepresentation.\n<\/p>\n
                    (g)   The said submission of fraud is wholly<\/p>\n
     inappropriate and liable to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
                    (h)   The appointees appointed by the receiver<\/p>\n
     are poor persons, who have not been paid at all and were<\/p>\n
     kept away from employment because of the stay orders of<\/p>\n
     this Court in various writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
                    (i)   In the absence of any fraud as alleged,<\/p>\n
     the present lead petition is required to be dismissed<\/p>\n
     with costs.\n<\/p>\n
     8.             We have heard learned Advocate for the rival<\/p>\n
     parties for a considerable length of time.                        We have<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                                  25<\/span><\/p>\n
     perused the entire record of the writ petitions and of<\/p>\n
     decided cases referred to in these petitions. We have<\/p>\n
     carefully      considered       the       submissions         advanced        by     the<\/p>\n
     learned Advocates for the rival parties.\n<\/p>\n
     9.             Taking up Writ Petition No.254\/1993 as a lead<\/p>\n
     matter for consideration, which contains the prayer for<\/p>\n
     declaration      that     the       judgment        of     this      Court        dated<\/p>\n
     15.10.1992 in Writ Petition No.1943\/1992 is not binding<\/p>\n
     on the petitioner and be reviewed etc.. we proceed to<\/p>\n
     record reasons as hereinafter.\n<\/p>\n
     10.            Perusal of the array of the parties in Writ<\/p>\n
     Petition       No.1943\/1992         shows        that       there       were        four<\/p>\n
     petitioners,      who    were       the    employees        appointed          by    the<\/p>\n
     receiver.      There    were    eight       respondents,           out    of      which<\/p>\n
     respondent       Nos.2        and     3    are       the      local       Education<\/p>\n
     Department      at   Amravati,        respondent           No.4    is    Mr.      Wazir<\/p>\n
     Patel the receiver, respondent Nos.5 and 6 are the other<\/p>\n
     members    of    the    Selection         Committee         appointed        by      the<\/p>\n
     Court, respondent Nos.7 and 8 are the Headmistress and<\/p>\n
     Headmaster      of      the     two       schools.         According         to     the<\/p>\n
     petitioner, charge was taken by newly appointed Trustees<\/p>\n
     on 22.4.1991 and were also acting as such.                              If that is<\/p>\n
     so, we fail to understand as to how the petitioners<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                                     26<\/span><\/p>\n
     could not come to know about Writ Petition No.1943\/1992<\/p>\n
     through     respondent            Nos.7     and        8,     Headmistress           and<\/p>\n
     Headmaster          of    the     two     schools       or     local       Education<\/p>\n
     Department or other members, appointed by the Court on<\/p>\n
     the Selection Committee. There is no averment anywhere<\/p>\n
     in    the   writ         petition       explaining          this.    There      is    no<\/p>\n
     averment       in    the    writ        petition       that    after       receiving<\/p>\n
     charge      on       22.4.1991,           the     petitioners           made         any<\/p>\n
     correspondence  ig        about     the     appointments            made     by      the<\/p>\n
     receiver or their assertion as in-charge of the Trust<\/p>\n
     and the schools with local Education Department or any<\/p>\n
     of the respondent Nos.7 or 8.                         If they were in-charge<\/p>\n
     from 22.4.1991, it was for them to discharge this burden<\/p>\n
     as to what steps they took about apprising respondent<\/p>\n
     Nos.7 and 8 and the local Education Department.\n<\/p>\n
     11.            We see that a clear observation is made by<\/p>\n
     this   Court        in    the   judgment        dated       15.10.1992       in   Writ<\/p>\n
     Petition         No.1943\/1992             with         reference           to        the<\/p>\n
     interpretation made by the local Education Department<\/p>\n
     about the order of this Court dated 9.6.1992 in First<\/p>\n
     Appeal No.221\/1991, which reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
                                 The     Education           Officer,       Zilla\n              Parishad,         Amravati        by     his       letter     dated\n<\/pre>\n
              20th July, 1992 informed the Head master of<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                                  27<\/span><\/p>\n
              the School that according to our order, the
\n              appointments made prior to the said order<\/p>\n
              are subject to the result of the appeal and
\n              that no subsequent appointments can be made.<\/p>\n
\n              The   above     interpretation            of    the   Education\n              Officer    is    clearly       erroneous.            The   School\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n              Management       had      power       to        appoint        the\n<\/pre>\n
              necessary staff after the date of the said
\n              order,     but     the       said    appointments            were
\n              subject    to     the     result      of       the    aforesaid<\/p>\n
              appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     12.<\/p>\n
                    The submission that this Court made clearly<\/p>\n
     wrong observation in the said judgment dated 15.10.1992<\/p>\n
     in Writ Petition No.1943\/1992 that there was no hurdle<\/p>\n
     in    granting     approval      to    the    appointments          because       of<\/p>\n
     dismissal of First Appeal No.221\/1991, in our opinion,<\/p>\n
     at the best can be described by the petitioner as an<\/p>\n
     illegal and incorrect finding by the Court, as submitted<\/p>\n
     by learned Senior Advocate Mr. K.H. Deshpande. But it<\/p>\n
     cannot be said that the said finding is vitiated by any<\/p>\n
     fraud or misrepresentation. The submission made by the<\/p>\n
     learned    senior      Advocate       Mr.    K.H.       Deshpande     about      the<\/p>\n
     judgment dated 7.10.1992 in First Appeal No.221\/1991 can<\/p>\n
     at the most lead one to say that the Court erred in<\/p>\n
     recording judgment dated 15.10.1992 in Writ Petition No.<\/p>\n
     1943\/1992 without reading the judgment dated 7.10.1992<\/p>\n
     passed    in   First      Appeal      No.221\/1991         by    insisting        for<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                                         28<\/span><\/p>\n
     certified copy thereof from either of the parties or suo<\/p>\n
     motu when they were told that the said first appeal was<\/p>\n
     decided a week back. But according to us, this cannot<\/p>\n
     vitiate the judgment dated 15.10.1992 in Writ Petition<\/p>\n
     No.1943\/1992,        as    we    do       not    find       that     there      was     any<\/p>\n
     fraud, collusion or misrepresentation. And these could<\/p>\n
     be    the   grounds       to    challenge            the    said     judgment        dated<\/p>\n
     15.10.1992 before the Apex Court.\n<\/p>\n
     13.<\/p>\n
                      Coming    to       the    averments          made      in    the     writ<\/p>\n
     petition, we find that the petition does not contain<\/p>\n
     specific      averments        as    to    the        details      of    the     alleged<\/p>\n
     collusion between the appointees and respondent No.3<\/p>\n
     the receiver.         The submission of the present petitioner<\/p>\n
     to draw inference of collusion merely because certain<\/p>\n
     facts,      namely   the       facts      that        this     Court     in     judgment<\/p>\n
     dated 7.10.1992 held that the Charity Commissioner and<\/p>\n
     receiver     were    instrumental               in    not    allowing         the    first<\/p>\n
     board of trustees to function or that the petitioner had<\/p>\n
     already      taken        charge          on     22.4.1991           and       that      no<\/p>\n
     appointments       could       be    made       at     least     beyond       9.6.1992,<\/p>\n
     were not pointed out to the Court does not appeal to us<\/p>\n
     being sheerly argumentive and contrary to record.                                    We do<\/p>\n
     not believe that merely by drawing inferences, we should<\/p>\n
     record       a     finding           of         collusion          or        fraud       or<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                               29<\/span><\/p>\n
     misrepresentation.\n<\/p>\n
     14.            There is no documentary evidence or any other<\/p>\n
     satisfactory        evidence       brought      on      record        by      the<\/p>\n
     petitioner to show that the petitioner was in fact given<\/p>\n
     charge on 22.1.1991 by any Court or authority or by the<\/p>\n
     receiver himself.         The petitioner did not get executed<\/p>\n
     through Court the order of Court dated 20.4.1991 below<\/p>\n
     Exh.1 for taking charge.\n<\/p>\n
                    On the contrary, there is a document (Annexure<\/p>\n
     R-14) dated 6.11.1992 at page Nos.181 to 183 in this<\/p>\n
     Writ Petition which clearly shows that the receiver Mr.<\/p>\n
     Wazir Patel had handed over the charge to the concerned<\/p>\n
     Superintendent Shri R.R. Navalkar on 6.11.1992 at 9.00<\/p>\n
     p.m..      This being the documentary proof, we are not<\/p>\n
     inclined       to   accept   any    oral     statement          nor    we     are<\/p>\n
     inclined to draw inferences about the petitioner having<\/p>\n
     taken charge on 22.4.1991. That apart, there is other<\/p>\n
     reason why we say so.\n<\/p>\n
     15.            In First Appeal No.221\/1991, while deciding<\/p>\n
     the same finally on 7.10.1992, six civil applications<\/p>\n
     were    disposed     of   without    any     orders.       It    is    not     in<\/p>\n
     dispute that order dated 9.6.1992 was passed in the said<\/p>\n
     First Appeal only about the fate of the appointments,<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                               30<\/span><\/p>\n
     namely that the appointments shall be subject to the<\/p>\n
     result of the appeal.          We fail to understand as to why<\/p>\n
     the present petitioner did not pray and seek the orders<\/p>\n
     regarding the validity of the appointments made by the<\/p>\n
     receiver earlier or after 9.6.1992 or actions taken by<\/p>\n
     the   receiver     till      the    date    of     the      said      judgment<\/p>\n
     inter alia on the ground that the charge was already<\/p>\n
     taken on 22.4.1991 by the petitioner and no appointments<\/p>\n
     could at all be made by receiver at least after 9.6.1992<\/p>\n
     in First Appeal No.221\/1991 and since they were made<\/p>\n
     illegally, and those were not binding on the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
     Nothing prevented the petitioner from doing so when the<\/p>\n
     said appeal was hotly contested at all stages.\n<\/p>\n
     16.            First    Appeal       No.221\/1991         was        the     only<\/p>\n
     proceedings where alone the orders as to clarification<\/p>\n
     of acts of Receiver could have been sought validly.                           The<\/p>\n
     matter would have ended then and there without keeping<\/p>\n
     any scope for confusion sought to be created. There is<\/p>\n
     no explanation whatsoever before us on this aspect of<\/p>\n
     the   matter.    On    the   contrary,      as    to    the    charge,        the<\/p>\n
     following      observations        and   findings      in     the     judgment<\/p>\n
     dated 7.10.1992 of the said First Appeal No.221\/1991 are<\/p>\n
     contrary to what has been contended before us :-\n<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                                  31<\/span><\/p>\n
                        Para 11.       ….The         scheme          is       not
\n              implemented even now because of the various<\/p>\n
              tactics applied by the appellant and their
\n              office.\n<\/p>\n
                        Para 12.       …It      is       thus       crystally<\/p>\n
              clear that the plaintiff did not leave any
\n              stone unturned to keep defendants away from
\n              the administration and with this intention
\n              also filed a suit.\n<\/p>\n
                     ig Para 13.       …The      objective
\n              appellant has been substantially achieved.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                        of      the\n\n\n                        Para 18.       ...The      trustees           who       are\n                   \n<\/pre>\n
              alive shall be given complete charge of the
\n              management and administration of the trust
\n              along      with    upto    date     accounts          within      one<\/p>\n
              month from today.\n<\/p>\n
     17.            The above operative part thus shows that this<\/p>\n
     Court    in    First       Appeal    No.221\/1991           recorded       a    finding<\/p>\n
     that the petitioner and the board of trustees were never<\/p>\n
     given charge of the management and administration of the<\/p>\n
     Trust.        On    the    contrary,       this      Court     did      not    in    any<\/p>\n
     expressed        manner      or     by    passing         an    order         oust    or<\/p>\n
     discharge him until final disposal of first appeal and<\/p>\n
     rather    allowed         the     receiver    to      be     in-charge         of    the<\/p>\n
     management and administration for a period beyond one<\/p>\n
     month from the date of judgment dated 7.10.1992 i.e.<\/p>\n
     till 6.11.1992.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                              32<\/span><\/p>\n
     18.            We do not agree with learned Senior Advocate<\/p>\n
     Mr. K.H. Deshpande when he submits that a receiver once<\/p>\n
     removed automatically becomes functous officio and the<\/p>\n
     period of one month given for rendition of accounts is<\/p>\n
     merely   for        doing   ministerial       acts     or     for     rendering<\/p>\n
     accounts in present case.\n<\/p>\n
                    The reason is that there is a clear direction<\/p>\n
     made by this Court in First Appeal No.221\/1991 that the<\/p>\n
     receiver shall hand over the charge of the management<\/p>\n
     and   administration         of   the   Trust       along     with     accounts<\/p>\n
     within one month from the date of judgment, vide para 18<\/p>\n
     above quoted.\n<\/p>\n
     19.            We    are    not   inclined     to    interpret        the     said<\/p>\n
     judgment or the finding or the direction as suggested by<\/p>\n
     learned senior Advocate Mr. K.H. Deshpande since to our<\/p>\n
     mind, it is clear that nothing prevented the petitioner<\/p>\n
     from getting the same clarified at the appropriate time<\/p>\n
     in the manner that is now being contended.\n<\/p>\n
     20.            In other words, in the order made by this<\/p>\n
     Court, the receiver continued to be in charge of the<\/p>\n
     management and administration till 6.11.1992. That being<\/p>\n
     a clear order, we do not agree that the receiver became<\/p>\n
     functionless on the date of dismissal of the suit i.e.<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                               33<\/span><\/p>\n
     20.4.1991      or     even   the   appeal       which     was     decided       on<\/p>\n
     7.10.1992. The direction about retention of the entire<\/p>\n
     charge    of        management     and     administration            with      the<\/p>\n
     receiver till 6.11.1992 has thus been amply clarified by<\/p>\n
     the   first     appellate        Court     itself       and     we    are      not<\/p>\n
     impressed to interpret the same on the basis of various<\/p>\n
     interlocutory orders referred to us nor we will touch<\/p>\n
     the sanctity of the said judgment and order in First<\/p>\n
     Appeal No.221\/1991 by making any interpretation.\n<\/p>\n
     21.            It is nowhere pleaded in the petition that the<\/p>\n
     receiver in fact never obtained any prior approval of<\/p>\n
     the Civil Court vide its order dated 3.3.1990 before he<\/p>\n
     made appointments.           At any rate, appointments were made<\/p>\n
     by him after 9.6.1992 when this Court made an order in<\/p>\n
     relation thereto. This Court as already stated by us in<\/p>\n
     paragraph      No.10     herein     also       held     that     even       after<\/p>\n
     9.6.1992 appointments could be made. Then the suit was<\/p>\n
     dismissed      on    20.4.1991     by    the    Civil     Court      with      the<\/p>\n
     result   the    said     order     dated    3.3.1990        merged      in     the<\/p>\n
     dismissal of suit. The appointments were never made till<\/p>\n
     the suit was dismissed, but were made when the lis was<\/p>\n
     in this Court.\n<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                                       34<\/span><\/p>\n
     22.            There     has      to    be    adequate          pleadings,       cogent<\/p>\n
     evidence and materials on record to draw an inference or<\/p>\n
     record a finding that fraud was played on the Court or<\/p>\n
     the Court was misled or misrepresented by a collusive<\/p>\n
     writ petition. The decision in the case of Ramchandra<\/p>\n
     Ganpat     Shinde       and       another         (supra)        will     be    of     no<\/p>\n
     assistance to the petitioner in view of the peculiar<\/p>\n
     findings about collusive nature of the lis involved in<\/p>\n
     that case. The following paragraph Nos.8 and 9 show the<\/p>\n
     finding :\n<\/p>\n
                    8.       It     would         be    obvious        that      A.K.\n           Patil,         Ex-Chairman        of    the       defunct     committee\n<\/pre>\n
           with a view to get over that impediment and to<\/p>\n
           enable         newly     admitted            2000     members       after<\/p>\n
           December 17, 1991, set up More, a co-director
\n           and Mule, alleged to be his friend, got filed
\n           the      first         writ      petition         and      obtained        a
\n           direction        to     conduct        election         following        its<\/p>\n
           heels got filed second writ petition with a
\n           format of legal process but immediately Patil
\n           intervened and appeared on the very date of
\n           admission;            put     forth          consent        order        and<\/p>\n
           obtained the order from the Court to conduct
\n           election as per the provisional list existing
\n           as    on       June     30,      1992       and     got    issued        the
\n           direction to the Collector with the mandate to
\n           conduct election in accordance with that list.
\n           It       was     specifically               alleged       that      Patil
\n           colluded         with       More       and     Mule,       abused        the<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                                        35<\/span><\/p>\n
           process         of    the    Court,         played       fraud      on       the
\n           Court and obtained minutes order by consent<\/p>\n
           without         knowledge             to    any        member      of        the
\n           society. In the absence of any denial of the
\n           allegations and in the light of the background
\n           of    the      case    the       necessary            inference         to    be<\/p>\n
           unerringly deduced would be that the consent
\n           order      is    a    collusive            and     fraudulent           order;
\n           made format of due process of law but obtained
\n           orders contrary to the statutory mandate of<\/p>\n
           Rule 4 (1) of the Rules. It could thus be seen<\/p>\n
           any<\/p>\n
           that none of the members of the society had
\n                    opportunity            to    know       or    to     oppose         the
\n           consent          order.              Thereby           the        necessary<\/p>\n
           conclusion           would       be    that       a    collusive         order
\n           obtained by abuse of the process of the Court
\n           by       playing       fraud          on      the       Court,          became<\/p>\n
           foundation            to        conduct          elections         to        the
\n           Managing              Committee              of         the         society<\/p>\n
           circumventing the mandate of Rule 4 (1) of the
\n           Rules.\n<\/p>\n
           9.       In Nagubai Ammal v. B. Shamma Rao,<\/a> 1956
\n           SCR 451 at 463 : (AIR 1956 SC 593 at p. 599)
\n           this      Court       held      that       collusion         in    judicial
\n           proceedings           is    a    secret       arrangement           between
\n           two persons that the one should institute a<\/p>\n
           suit against the other in order to obtain the
\n           decision         of    a     judicial            Tribunal         for     some
\n           sinister purpose. In such a proceedings, the
\n           claim put forward is fictitious, the contest
\n           over      it     is    unreal,         and       the    decree          passed
\n           therein is a mere mask having the similitude<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                                     36<\/span><\/p>\n
             of a judicial determination and worn by the
\n             parties with the object of confounding third<\/p>\n
             parties.    This      was     reiterated          in    Rup     Chand
\n             Gupta v. Raghuvanshi Pvt. Ltd.,<\/a> (1964) 7 SCR
\n             760 at 763 : (AIR 1964 SC 1889 at p. 1891), in
\n             which this Court held that the collusion is an<\/p>\n
             improper act done by an improper refraining
\n             from     doing        an     act,        for       a      dishonest
\n             purpose. …\n<\/p>\n
     23.            Upon perusal of the entire writ petition, we<\/p>\n
     do not find any specific averments as to how and when<\/p>\n
     the appointees and the receiver colluded to file Writ<\/p>\n
     Petition No.1943\/92 and to obtain the judgment and order<\/p>\n
     dated 15.10.1992.          Merely because the receiver made the<\/p>\n
     appointments of the appointees and the appointees prayed<\/p>\n
     for grant of approval from the Education Officer, no<\/p>\n
     collusion can be inferred.                 The crux of the averments in<\/p>\n
     paragraph Nos.2 to 12 of the petition about collusion,<\/p>\n
     fraud    or    misrepresentation            is    that      the     appointees<\/p>\n
     petitioners in Writ Petition No.1943\/1992 suppressed the<\/p>\n
     facts about the taking over of charge on 22.4.1991 by<\/p>\n
     the     President       Mr.        Munaf     Hussain           Inayat       Hussain;\n<\/p>\n
     existence of status quo order as modified by this Court<\/p>\n
     on    8.5.1991     in    Writ        Petition         No.1184\/1991           and     on<\/p>\n
     20.6.1991,      9.6.1992       in    First       Appeal        No.221\/1991;         and<\/p>\n
     interpretation of this Court s order dated 9.6.1992 made<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                                     37<\/span><\/p>\n
     by Deputy Director of Education and consequent refusal<\/p>\n
     of Education Officer to accord approval. Further that<\/p>\n
     the judgment dated 7.10.1992 in First Appeal No.221\/1991<\/p>\n
     was never shown to this Court by the appointees and the<\/p>\n
     receiver as the findings therein are in favour of the<\/p>\n
     present     petitioner.           None     of     these        events      and      the<\/p>\n
     averments would make any difference in view of what we<\/p>\n
     find hereafter.         We now record our reasons for this and<\/p>\n
     for   holding   ig   that    it     is     not     possible        to     draw      any<\/p>\n
     conclusion about collusion, fraud or misrepresentation.\n<\/p>\n
     The reasons are as follows :\n<\/p>\n
     24.            The    submission          made    by     the    learned        Senior<\/p>\n
     Advocate Mr. K.H. Deshpande that the petitioner                                  board<\/p>\n
     of trustees or the President of the petitioner                               Society<\/p>\n
     was   not      made     party        to     the        said      Writ       Petition<\/p>\n
     No.1943\/1992 does not impress us.                       In the light of the<\/p>\n
     factual aspect before us, we are inclined to hold that<\/p>\n
     the   petitioner            or    the      first       board        of      trustees<\/p>\n
     represented     by     Mr.       Munaf    Hussain      Inayat       Hussain,        the<\/p>\n
     present petitioner before us was never placed in-charge<\/p>\n
     of the Trust and its institutions at any time before<\/p>\n
     6.11.1992.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                                     38<\/span><\/p>\n
     25.            Consequently,          we    ought          to    hold      that       the<\/p>\n
     receiver was in-charge of the Trust and its institutions<\/p>\n
     till 6.11.1992. The petitioner as President of the first<\/p>\n
     board of trustees could not have been arrayed as party<\/p>\n
     to    Writ   Petition        No.1943\/1992         till       the    date       of    its<\/p>\n
     disposal i.e. 15.10.1992 and even till 6.11.1992. The<\/p>\n
     Trust was thus rightly sued and was duly represented in<\/p>\n
     the said writ petition through receiver Mr. Wazir Patel<\/p>\n
     and the petitioner could not have been a party to the<\/p>\n
     said   writ    petition        as    contended         before       us.       In    other<\/p>\n
     words, the judgment dated 15.10.1992 in Writ Petition<\/p>\n
     No.1943\/1992         would    certainly         bind       the    Urdu     Education<\/p>\n
     Society      which    was     at    the    relevant          time   sued       through<\/p>\n
     receiver who was appointed on 4.2.1983 by a competent<\/p>\n
     Civil Court and held to be in-charge till 6.11.1992 by<\/p>\n
     this Court.          We, therefore, reject the contention that<\/p>\n
     the    judgment       dated    15.10.1992             in   Writ     Petition         No.<\/p>\n
     1943\/1992 is not binding on the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
     26.            The     petitioner          has         not       pleaded           either<\/p>\n
     ignorance about the appointment of writ petitioners in<\/p>\n
     Writ   Petition       No.1943\/1992         or     about         pendency       of    said<\/p>\n
     writ petition. Moreover, it is not explained as to what<\/p>\n
     prevented      the    petitioner          from    intervening            or    getting<\/p>\n
     impleaded      in     the    Writ    Petition          No.1943\/1992            in    the<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                               39<\/span><\/p>\n
     background that the petitioner was pursuing the cause of<\/p>\n
     salaries of teachers appointed by the writ petitioner,<\/p>\n
     and was also arrayed as respondent No.1 in the Contempt<\/p>\n
     Petition which was filed in Writ Petition No.1943\/1992.\n<\/p>\n
     27.            As already held, we are not inclined to agree<\/p>\n
     with   learned     Senior     Advocate     Mr.     K.H.    Deshpande        that<\/p>\n
     there was material on record to show that any fraud was<\/p>\n
     played on the Court in collusion or misrepresentation<\/p>\n
     was made for obtaining the judgment dated 15.10.1992 in<\/p>\n
     Writ Petition No.1943\/1992.\n<\/p>\n
     28.            Since we have held that the appointments of<\/p>\n
     the appointees made by the receiver Mr. Wazir Patel were<\/p>\n
     made within his authority and thus the appointments made<\/p>\n
     by him could not be said to be illegal and further that<\/p>\n
     the    judgment    of   this      Court   dated     15.10.1992        in    Writ<\/p>\n
     Petition No.1943\/1992, directing the Education Officer<\/p>\n
     to grant approvals to these appointees and also to pay<\/p>\n
     them    salary     from     the     Government      exchequer          is     not<\/p>\n
     vitiated          either       by         fraud,          collusion            or<\/p>\n
     misrepresentation.\n<\/p>\n
     29.            Copy of the order passed by this Court in Writ<\/p>\n
     Petition       No.1943\/1992    is    on    record     of    Writ     Petition<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                               40<\/span><\/p>\n
     No.254\/1993 at page 16 to 18. When this Court issued a<\/p>\n
     writ, it was directed in distinct terms as to what it<\/p>\n
     meant, which would be better by referring the quotation<\/p>\n
     as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
                      If the appointments of the petitioners
\n             are     in   accordance       with        the     rules,       the
\n             Education Officer is directed to accord his<\/p>\n
             approval to the same. The School authorities
\n             are    directed
\n                     ig          to   include     the        names    of    the
\n             petitioners Nos.1,2,3 and 4 in the salary
\n             bills of the staff and the Education Officer<\/p>\n
             is directed to grant their salaries from the
\n             dates of their appointments.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (Quoted      from     Page    17     of     Writ        Petition<\/p>\n
             No.254\/1993)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     30.            It is clear that this Court had left it open<\/p>\n
     to    the   Education       Officer   to     decide        as     to    whether<\/p>\n
     appointments of the petitioners are in accordance with<\/p>\n
     rules. If the tenor of order is seen, this Court does<\/p>\n
     not admit any role of confusion nor it is prejudice to<\/p>\n
     anybody.\n<\/p>\n
     31.            The   petitioners      were         before       this     Court,<\/p>\n
     claiming relief of salary. It was well sounded to the<\/p>\n
     Court that there was some controversy relating to the<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                                     41<\/span><\/p>\n
     appointments i.e. those being made by the receiver. The<\/p>\n
     employees         who     were   appointed        by    President         Mr.      Munaf<\/p>\n
     Hussain        Inayat      Hussain        were     also       striving        to      get<\/p>\n
     salaries and it is in this background this Court appears<\/p>\n
     to have directed that the appointments were legal.\n<\/p>\n
     32.               Mr. Munaf Hussain Inayat Hussain the President<\/p>\n
     was very well arrayed as respondent No.1 in Contempt<\/p>\n
     Petition No.259\/1992 along with two heads of the school.\n<\/p>\n
     Said contempt petition was initially filed as a civil<\/p>\n
     application        in     Writ     Petition      No.1943\/1992          and      was    by<\/p>\n
     order        of   the      Court    treated        as     contempt         petition.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Munaf Hussain Inayat Hussain the President was thus<\/p>\n
     fully aware of the pendency of this writ petition and<\/p>\n
     his conduct has to be read as forbearance not appearing<\/p>\n
     in     the    said      writ     petition.        It     could      therefore         be<\/p>\n
     extremely difficult to spell out that Mr. Munaf Hussain<\/p>\n
     Inayat       Hussain      i.e.     President       of    the    Society         in    the<\/p>\n
     present group of petitions was unaware of pendency of<\/p>\n
     Writ     Petition         No.1943\/1992           and    alleged        fraud.         The<\/p>\n
     petitioner in Writ Petition No.254\/1993 thus had full<\/p>\n
     opportunity to know and participate in the proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
     33.               Certainty        and     continuity            are       essential<\/p>\n
     ingredients          of     rule     of     Law.        The     same      would       be<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                                    42<\/span><\/p>\n
     considerably eroded and suffer a serious set back if<\/p>\n
     this    Court       were     readily      to    declare         that   a    earlier<\/p>\n
     judgment of this Court is vitiated by fraud, collusion<\/p>\n
     or misrepresentation. But the same ought to be done only<\/p>\n
     when substantial and compelling reasons are shown and<\/p>\n
     established         by   a   strong      foundation.        A    judgment         of    a<\/p>\n
     Court once delivered has a certain sanctity. The same<\/p>\n
     Court ought to take due care and caution when called<\/p>\n
     upon to examine whether it is vitiated by fraud etc.. We<\/p>\n
     are fully aware that a judgment of a Court obtained by<\/p>\n
     playing fraud on the Court or by misrepresentation etc.<\/p>\n
     should not be allowed to operate.\n<\/p>\n
     34.            The questions which essentially arise are :-\n<\/p>\n
                    Can a judgment of a Court be allowed to be<\/p>\n
     made inoperative on mere allegations of fraud, collusion<\/p>\n
     or    misrepresentation            and   then    what     is     the    degree         of<\/p>\n
     proof required ?\n<\/p>\n
                    Should        the    Court       merely      on     creation            of<\/p>\n
     suspicion      or    for     possibility        of   another       view      of    the<\/p>\n
     matter make an order vitiating a judgment of a Court ?\n<\/p>\n
     35.            In our opinion, the answer has to be in the<\/p>\n
     negative.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                                  43<\/span><\/p>\n
     36.            As     a   sequel,     we     will    have     to     uphold      the<\/p>\n
     impugned common judgment and order made by the Tribunal<\/p>\n
     aforesaid.       However,       we    are     inclined       to      modify      the<\/p>\n
     direction No.4 in the operative part of the said common<\/p>\n
     judgment       of     the     School        Tribunal        dated      9.3.1995,<\/p>\n
     regarding payment of arrears of pay and allowance or the<\/p>\n
     back wages for the following reasons :\n<\/p>\n
                    The
\n                     ig        terminations        were     effected          by      the<\/p>\n
     petitioner      on    9.11.1992       only    on     the    ground     that      the<\/p>\n
     appointments         of     those    appointees       were      made      by     the<\/p>\n
     receiver, who had no authority to make any appointment<\/p>\n
     that was due to the dispute initiated by the persons<\/p>\n
     interested in the petitioner                   Trust, staff working in<\/p>\n
     the schools run by the Trust, community people, Charity<\/p>\n
     Commissioner, the President – Mr. Munaf Hussain of the<\/p>\n
     petitioner           Society, his first board of trustees and<\/p>\n
     others.\n<\/p>\n
     37.            The litigation was brought to the Courts and<\/p>\n
     many interim orders were passed by the Courts. Even in<\/p>\n
     the instant case, the judgment and order made by the<\/p>\n
     Tribunal       was    not    stayed    when    the     writ       petition       was<\/p>\n
     admitted. The period of more than 18 years has been<\/p>\n
     spent     in    the       process     from    the     date      of     order      of<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                                     44<\/span><\/p>\n
     termination. The petitioner                       Education Trust and its<\/p>\n
     schools if are asked to comply with the direction No.4<\/p>\n
     in entirety, regarding payment of full back wages, as<\/p>\n
     ordered      by    the     School        Tribunal,      there       is     a   serious<\/p>\n
     likelihood of the Trust and its institutions crumbling<\/p>\n
     down in totality. That will result into closure of the<\/p>\n
     schools      and     institutions           putting         all     the     employees<\/p>\n
     working      under        the     Trust     apart       from       the      employees<\/p>\n
     concerned in these petitions to a grave agony.\n<\/p>\n
     38.            In    so     far    as     writ     petitions        filed      by    the<\/p>\n
     Deputy Director of Vocational Education are concerned,<\/p>\n
     we    are    unable        to     trace     from      the     contents         of    the<\/p>\n
     petitions as to how the State Government is aggrieved by<\/p>\n
     the order, when the payment alternatively to be made by<\/p>\n
     the    Government          is     from    the      grants         payable      to    the<\/p>\n
     petitioner.         Such    an     order     is       very    well        within     the<\/p>\n
     contemplation of Section 11 of the Maharashtra Employees<\/p>\n
     of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation<\/p>\n
     Act, 1977, which can be clear from Sub Section 3 of<\/p>\n
     Section 11 of the Act, which reads as follows.\n<\/p>\n
                         11 (3).         It shall be lawful for the
\n                 Tribunal to recommend to State Government
\n                 that any dues directed by it to be paid to
\n                 the employee, or in case of an order to<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                                   45<\/span><\/p>\n
               reinstate the employee any emoluments to be
\n               paid to the employee till he is reinstated,<\/p>\n
               may    be    deducted        from    the    grant       due    and
\n               payable, or that may become due and payable
\n               in future, to the Management and be paid to
\n               the employee direct.\n<\/p>\n
     39.             In this background the petitions filed by the<\/p>\n
     Deputy Director of Vocational Education are not based on<\/p>\n
     legal     rightsig     and    are      devoid        of<\/p>\n
     petitioner State had no cause of action, and the Deputy
\n                                                                bona      fides.        The<\/p>\n
     Director of Vocational Education had clearly fallen in<\/p>\n
     the    line     of    favouring     the       Management       for      ostensible<\/p>\n
     reasons.\n<\/p>\n
     40.             In    so    far   as    two     petitions        filed      by     the<\/p>\n
     employees i.e. Writ Petition Nos.1888\/1993 and 3572\/1995<\/p>\n
     are     concerned,         they   have    to      follow       the      course      as<\/p>\n
     emerging upon dismissal of Writ Petition Nos.254\/1993<\/p>\n
     and 1297\/1995.\n<\/p>\n
     41.                  This Court had noticed from the record that<\/p>\n
     when the writ petitions of teachers, namely Noor Subah<\/p>\n
     Athar Hussain, Tamijodin, Abdul Rafiq and Javed Anjum in<\/p>\n
     Writ      Petition          Nos.1888\/1993           and      3572\/1995           were<\/p>\n
     considered, the question of granting them salaries had<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                              46<\/span><\/p>\n
     arisen and it was very well debated before this Court<\/p>\n
     that the group of teachers appointed by the receiver was<\/p>\n
     simultaneously       exerting      to    demand        the     salaries.         The<\/p>\n
     teachers appointed by President Mr. Munaf Hussain were<\/p>\n
     also doing the same thing.\n<\/p>\n
     42.            In this background, this Court (Coram : Y.K.\n<\/p>\n
     Sabharwal, C.J. and M.B. Ghodeswar, J.) passed an order<\/p>\n
     on 19.3.1999. It was at that time urged that at least<\/p>\n
     one group of teachers should get the salary and the<\/p>\n
     President Mr. Munaf Hussain gave an undertaking, which<\/p>\n
     is recorded by this Court in its order dated 19.3.1999.\n<\/p>\n
     Relevant portion of the order is recorded as follows :\n<\/p>\n
                      …..Factually, it is the petitioners,
\n            who are      teaching, though            the     order of        the
\n            School      Tribunal        is    in       favour           of   the
\n            intervenors. Be that as it may, subject to<\/p>\n
            fulfilment      of    the    rules        and       regulations,
\n            prima facie the Deputy Director will probably
\n            release the grants atleast for one set of the
\n            teachers.      Regarding         the      intervenors,           the<\/p>\n
            Management is prepared to give an undertaking
\n            to      reimburse    them   if    order        of     the    School
\n            Tribunal is maintained.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     43.            It is thus clear that the petitioners in Writ<\/p>\n
     Petition Nos.1888\/1993 and 3572\/1995 have remained in<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                           47<\/span><\/p>\n
     the employment because of the interim order passed by<\/p>\n
     this    Court     and   the   teachers       who     want      order       of<\/p>\n
     reinstatement and full back wages, which order was not<\/p>\n
     stayed, remained out of employment and without salary.\n<\/p>\n
     44.            Thus, the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.\n<\/p>\n
     1888\/1993 and 3572\/1995           are not entitled for relief<\/p>\n
     whatsoever in view of what we have found that receiver<\/p>\n
     was factually in-charge
\n                     ig              and was not legally ousted or<\/p>\n
     discharged. No fault whatsoever therefore could be found<\/p>\n
     with the appointments of the employees appointed by the<\/p>\n
     receiver. The employees appointed by President Mr. Munaf<\/p>\n
     Hussain Inayat Hussain were certainly appointed without<\/p>\n
     new    trustees’    having    actual   entered       the     office       and<\/p>\n
     without discharge of his duty.\n<\/p>\n
     45.            We, therefore, hold that these petitioners in<\/p>\n
     Writ    Petition    Nos.1888\/1993      and     3572\/1995         are      not<\/p>\n
     entitled for any relief and thus petitions are liable to<\/p>\n
     be dismissed. The salaries and allowances drawn by the<\/p>\n
     teachers will however stand appropriated towards duty<\/p>\n
     performed by them.\n<\/p>\n
     46.            That apart, we find that in the memo of appeal<\/p>\n
     that was filed before the Tribunal that the employees<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                                  48<\/span><\/p>\n
     never    averred      that      they    were       surviving         without      any<\/p>\n
     source of income nor in reply to the present petitions,<\/p>\n
     there    are    any   averments         to    that     effect.        It    is    not<\/p>\n
     possible for this Court to believe that these appointees<\/p>\n
     have been surviving without any source of income or any<\/p>\n
     gainful avocation or employment for all these years.                               At<\/p>\n
     the same time, this Court cannot forget the fact that<\/p>\n
     these    appointees        have       been     put     to       sufferance        and<\/p>\n
     hardships. Thus, balancing the entire matter regarding<\/p>\n
     award of full back wages, in our considered opinion,<\/p>\n
     award of back wages to the extent of 25 % of the full<\/p>\n
     back wages should subserve the interest of justice. In<\/p>\n
     the event the Government has not paid regularly towards<\/p>\n
     non-salary grants to the schools, the payment of arrears<\/p>\n
     of 25% back wages be disbursed from unpaid Government<\/p>\n
     grants. If there are no undisbursed grants, the arrears<\/p>\n
     will have to be paid by the employer                       Trust.\n<\/p>\n
     47.            We   are,       therefore,      inclined         to    modify      the<\/p>\n
     impugned common judgment dated 9.3.1995, passed by the<\/p>\n
     School    Tribunal        in    respect       of     all    the       appointees,<\/p>\n
     appointed      by   the    receiver      involved          in    Writ      Petition<\/p>\n
     No.1297\/1995,       who    are    not    reinstated         or       who   are    not<\/p>\n
     elsewhere       employed         in     any        aided        school\/teaching<\/p>\n
     institution.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                                49<\/span><\/p>\n
     48.            In the result, we find no merit in the lead<\/p>\n
     petition bearing Writ Petition No.254\/1993. It is, thus,<\/p>\n
     dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000\/- (Rupees<\/p>\n
     Ten Thousand Only) payable equally to the respondents<\/p>\n
     Nos.3 to 7 the appointees.\n<\/p>\n
     49.            Writ Petition No.1297\/1995 is partly allowed.\n<\/p>\n
     The impugned judgment and order dated 9.3.1995, passed<\/p>\n
     by the School Tribunal, Amravati is modified only to the<\/p>\n
     extent of substituting operative part 4 thereof, which<\/p>\n
     shall be read henceforth as under :\n<\/p>\n
                             (4)           The        respondent<\/p>\n
            Management is further directed to pay only
\n            25% of the arrears of pay and allowance to<\/p>\n
            each      of     the     appellants         who      are      not
\n            reinstated or those who are not elsewhere
\n            employed in any aided teaching institution,<\/p>\n
            within six months from their own resources,
\n            failing which the same amount shall carry
\n            simple     interest      @    4%    per   annum      till     the
\n            actual payment. The appellants shall however
\n            be granted continuity of service only for<\/p>\n
            the purposes of computing terminal benefits.\n<\/p>\n
                           It is made clear that it is for
\n            the respondent               Management to garner its
\n            own resources or to request the Government
\n            for     making     the       said    payments       from      the<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>
\n      wp254.93.odt                             50<\/span><\/p>\n
            Government grants, if the same are payable
\n            to the respective Educational Institutions.\n<\/p>\n
            The order of reinstatement of the appointees
\n            shall     be    made   within     a     period       of    three
\n            months from today.\n<\/p>\n
     50.            Other   writ   petitions,         namely       Writ      Petition<\/p>\n
     Nos.1888\/1993 and 3572\/1995 are dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
     51.            Writ     Petition       Nos.2231\/1995,               2291\/1995,<\/p>\n
     2292\/1995<\/p>\n
                    and    2295\/1995    are   dismissed           with     costs      of<\/p>\n
     Rs.5,000\/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) payable to each<\/p>\n
     respondent       employee.\n<\/p>\n
     52.            Rule accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
                 JUDGE                                           JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n\n\n     ssw\n\n\n\n\n                                                  ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:06:36 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Urdu Education Association vs Deputy Director Of Education on 16 March, 2011 Bench: A. H. Joshi, A. B. Chaudhari wp254.93.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.254\/1993, WRIT PETITION NO.1297\/1995, WRIT PETITION NO.1888\/1993, WRIT PETITION NO.2231\/1995, WRIT PETITION NO.2291\/1995, WRIT PETITION NO.2292\/1995, WRIT PETITION […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-80546","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nUrdu Education Association vs Deputy Director Of Education on 16 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/urdu-education-association-vs-deputy-director-of-education-on-16-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Urdu Education Association vs Deputy Director Of Education on 16 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/urdu-education-association-vs-deputy-director-of-education-on-16-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-06T07:27:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"44 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/urdu-education-association-vs-deputy-director-of-education-on-16-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/urdu-education-association-vs-deputy-director-of-education-on-16-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Urdu Education Association vs Deputy Director Of Education on 16 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-06T07:27:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/urdu-education-association-vs-deputy-director-of-education-on-16-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":7415,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/urdu-education-association-vs-deputy-director-of-education-on-16-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/urdu-education-association-vs-deputy-director-of-education-on-16-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/urdu-education-association-vs-deputy-director-of-education-on-16-march-2011\",\"name\":\"Urdu Education Association vs Deputy Director Of Education on 16 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-06T07:27:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/urdu-education-association-vs-deputy-director-of-education-on-16-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/urdu-education-association-vs-deputy-director-of-education-on-16-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/urdu-education-association-vs-deputy-director-of-education-on-16-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Urdu Education Association vs Deputy Director Of Education on 16 March, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Urdu Education Association vs Deputy Director Of Education on 16 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/urdu-education-association-vs-deputy-director-of-education-on-16-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Urdu Education Association vs Deputy Director Of Education on 16 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/urdu-education-association-vs-deputy-director-of-education-on-16-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-06T07:27:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"44 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/urdu-education-association-vs-deputy-director-of-education-on-16-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/urdu-education-association-vs-deputy-director-of-education-on-16-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Urdu Education Association vs Deputy Director Of Education on 16 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-06T07:27:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/urdu-education-association-vs-deputy-director-of-education-on-16-march-2011"},"wordCount":7415,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/urdu-education-association-vs-deputy-director-of-education-on-16-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/urdu-education-association-vs-deputy-director-of-education-on-16-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/urdu-education-association-vs-deputy-director-of-education-on-16-march-2011","name":"Urdu Education Association vs Deputy Director Of Education on 16 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-06T07:27:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/urdu-education-association-vs-deputy-director-of-education-on-16-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/urdu-education-association-vs-deputy-director-of-education-on-16-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/urdu-education-association-vs-deputy-director-of-education-on-16-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Urdu Education Association vs Deputy Director Of Education on 16 March, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80546","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=80546"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80546\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=80546"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=80546"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=80546"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}